Can a labor union effectively control where you can live and work?

[baigh75]

Can a union legally make rules that restrict the relationship of where you live and work? If you wanted to live, for example, in one area or state, but work in another periodically, but the union restricts that sort of migration, is that legal? Would that union "law" conflict with federal or state laws? Assume that we are not dealing with right-to-work states. For example, I live in Nevada and want to work in New York for a few weeks. Thoughts anyone on the labor law for this?

[cinnard]

They can't. If you want to work in another State, they may require you to check in with the Local out there but they can't tell you where you can work or not. NY is a big Union place so I'd check with the local out there before signing on anywhere....or just get paid under the table and no one will be the wiser.

[lazaro94]

If you are a member of the union, it's your obligation to follow that rule. It's put in there to protect your union brothers and sisters incomes. So, if you travel to another city, and go to the hall looking for work, you'll be last in line -- but they'd do the same for you.

[larry]

Suppose someone from another state came over to yours to work a month, and violated their union contract. How would you like it, having someone else undercut your pay? Call the hall and ask about the rules for traveling workers.

[darik]

In the city of Chicago they try to make city workers live in the city, but in the public schools where they are always trying to fill positions for their miserable school system it doesn't work too well. The Chicago Teachers Union has been trying to get them to throw this restriction out. God bless the Teachers Union, otherwise the city would screw us royally.

[nemausus36]

I have never heard of such ... nonsense (sorry)